Posted on 04/10/2004 10:39:47 AM PDT by Tribune7
This Easter weekend, I answer one of the more disparaging questions I'm asked by secularists. That is: "How can a true scientist believe in the gospel message of Christ?" The answer begins with a proper definition of science.
Science is the study of nature through empirical evidence. A truly scientific theory, by definition, must be testable by repeatable observations or experiments. Yet there are many observations in nature that cannot be scientifically tested. Take the creation of the natural world.
As explained by the big-bang theory, all the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg that inexplicably exploded. But nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it arrived. Neither has a single important prediction of this theory been confirmed. Even worse, it contradicts multiple principles, including the first and second laws of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of mass.
That means the big-bang theory is largely a faith-based idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
A very flawed article. For example: The Four Pillars of the Standard Cosmology. That website says (with supporting information that is widely available elsewhere):
The four key observational successes of the standard Hot Big Bang model are the following:# Expansion of the UniverseThe Big Bang model makes accurate and scientifically testable hypotheses in each of these areas and the remarkable agreement with the observational data gives us considerable confidence in the model.
# Origin of the cosmic background radiation
# Nucleosynthesis of the light elements
# Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure
Why can't you approach this discussion in a reasoned manner? Why can't you say you disagree with the premises that the article was written on? There is mounting evidence, among secular scientists, that Big Bang cosmogony may not be correct. But your perjorative response cuts off discussion.
The biggest problem in the debate over origins is the unwillingness of the debaters to look at both sides of the argument, and instead, to resort to ad hominem or disparaging insults.
The second biggest problem is the failure to recognize that the linch pins of the argument are in the presuppositions the debaters bring to the argument. Evolutionists and materialist presuppose a material universe with no possible explanations outside their realm of thinking. Creationists presuppose that there is both matter and non-matter in the universe that can provide a plausible explanation for the origin of the universe (cosmogony) and the origin of life (biogenesis). To dismiss one side or the other out of hand extinguishes the debate, at the worst, or at least, reduces the debate to hurling one "expert" against another.
This whole article is based upon a false premise. The gospel message of Christ ("love your neighbor," and Christ died for our sins) has absolutely nothing to do with science, and science has nothing to do with it. The two are not somehow mutually exclusive and one can hold confidence in science and a firm belief in the message of Christ without cognitive dissonance. The author of this piece has some sort of ideaological axe to grind.
Is it an act of will of did some cosmic alarm clock just spontaneously spring the Bang Bang into action?
Good grief! The author has virtually no understanding of biology. Her "doctorate" comes from Pat Robertson's Regent University. Robertson is a fine fellow, but I have doubts about the scientific integrity of that institution.
The woman who wrote this article is a scientist. She is saying she is asked by secularists "How can a true scientist believe in the gospel message of Christ?" Her article is her answer.
The gospel message of Christ ("love your neighbor," and Christ died for our sins) has absolutely nothing to do with science,
Since you belive in sin and the necessity for reconciliation you obviously believe in God. Presumably, you believe in the Resurrection -- an obvious violation of the laws of nature. Now, how do you answer those who sneer that this belief is irrational and superstitous?
It's how the math works out. Mathematicians work with infinite series that sum to a finite value and other series that don't. The Big Bang is one end of an interval, there is no 'before,' although there can be a definite instant of the Big Bang that we can only calculate but never visit with our powerful space telescopes.
Her Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology comes from University of Miami.
Her J.D. comes from from Regent. She is admitted to the Virginia Bar & is also licensed to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
It is my understanding that, while nutrients and other components pass from the mother's blood to the child's, and waste products pass from the child's blood to the mother's, their actual blood does not intermingle.
PS: Glad to see you two on this thread. Perhaps you'll answer some of the questions I posed (and you dismissed) on the evo threads. Maybe Dementsio would like to participate, as well?
To each his own.
Not exactly. If there were an artery directly connecting them, it would rupture at birth and the result would be catastrophic. Instead, the fetus is connected by the umbilical cord to the uterine walls at the placenta, where there is considerable interchange of material, including nutrients, antibodies, oxygen, waste, etc. The mother's blood and the blood of the fetus are in contact, however, and these exhanges occur through capillaries in the placenta. The article in question seems to indicate a total separation of the circulatory system of the fetus, in order to support the author's theological point that: "That means the blood of Mary that would have been marred by sin did not mix with the perfect blood of Christ shed on the cross". That may be good theology, but it is very far from the biological situation. Were there no circulatory connection, the fetus would starve, but long before that it would die of asphyxiation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.